Slashdot Mirror
48% of Americans Reject Evolution
MSNBC has up an article discussing the results of a Newsweek poll on faith and religion among members of the US populace. Given the straightforward question, 'Is evolution well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?', some 48% of Americans said 'No'. Furthermore, 34% of college graduates said they accept the Biblical story of creation as fact. An alarmingly high number of individuals responded that they believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, and that a deity created our species in its present form at the start of that period.
America continues to worry about losing its edge in the high-tech industry.
But that couldn't possibly be related to poor science education, could it?
Note: I'm referring specifically to the 48% who believe that evolution is not well-supported by scientific evidence and that it is not widely accepted within the scientific community. Well, and the people who think the universe is less than 10,000 years old, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You can believe in God and have an understanding of science, just like you can have morals without being religious. But thinking that evolution isn't supported by evidence, or isn't widely accepted by scientists, is just plain ignorance.
Ok, there's a mislabeling of vitamin C, and NY politicians are posturing about something, and a majority of Americans are christians.
THIS IS NEWS????
C'mon editors, what happened to news for nerds, etc?
We'd better start evangelizing science to these poor bastards.
Come on, who cares? Let people be ignorant. It's not like bringing people of below average intelligence or fundamentalist mindset into the scientific fold is going to make them valuable contributors. It'll just be a new type of ignorance to deal with. Let them be.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
I'm keeping a close eye on my neighbor's 911 Turbo with the I Love Jesus bumber sticker. The minute The Rapture hits, that baby is mine!
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
This is interesting, but not for the obvious reasons.
The poll looks fairly well-constructed, but the problem is that evolution has become extremely politicized. For many, this question wasn't asking about science-- it was a political question (are you with the conservative-christians or the liberal-atheist-scientists?).
I think the real story here is the process by which scientific issues get politicized. It's a process that we really need to understand. John Timmer over at Ars Technica often writes about this.
Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design has never considered the prostate, let alone actually had prostate trouble. Even a human engineer wouldn't design a component like that. They want me to believe omnipotent, omniscient being did that?
99.9% of humans have more than the average number of arms.
So why does this statistic matter?
So long as the people in charge are smarter than that, we should be okay.
*ulp*
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
It wasn't that long ago that we were having evolution trials, witch burning and with most of the world's states controlled by various churches.
Even with the rise of the evangelistic movement and the ties many have to the anti-evolution movement, they still pull only 48%.
Sounds not half bad to me.
Thank goodness that most of those surveyed are not in the scientific community!
A: 'We need a new therapy to help people with Disease X.'
B: 'Here try this.'
A: 'Did you test it? Is there any reason to think it works?
B: 'None of that matters! I believe it works.'
Exactly. Let's look at the question again: Is evolution well-supported by evidence AND widely accepted within the scientific community?
Note the logical construct "and". They're asking for A and B to be true. This rules out:
People who think A is false (any religious zealot)
People who think B is false (anyone who believes in evolution but is disallusioned by its acceptance)
The mindset is simply this: Any agenda, promoted by anyone, that contradicts something said in the bible, is an attack on its literal truth and thus, an attack on fundamentalist Christianity.
That's all you really need to know.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
That's clever, April fools joke the day before April. It has to be. Please.
sometimes, nothing.
Science is not done by consensus. If it were, the world would be flat with the sun revolving around it.
Most Americans (people over the age of 35ish) were never taught evolution in school and those who were have been taught poorly. I didn't realize the piss poor job my teachers did in junior high and high school until I took an anthropology class in college. People still like to quip that we evolved from monkeys but don't realize we evolved seperate from monkeys and share a common ancestor.
The ignorance to evolution is amazing in this country. It's no surprise at all people haven't embraced it here like they have overseas in Europe.
People wonder why this country lost its lead in manufacturing and, most recently, technological development. Why is a fairy tale -- and an expurgated, badly translated fairy tale at that -- so much more compelling than the tools and concepts that allow you to take control of your own life and environment?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
There are actually two versions of Genesis, the old Hebrew one where God is not a single being but Ilohim (which is plural and I may have spelled it wrong). Then there is the Christian version which has God as singular and omnipotent, all knowing and all seeing. The problem comes from Calvinism and it's strong (to this very day) influence on Christianity. If Genesis isn't literal to these people the foundation of Christianity falls apart. Evolution directly contradicts the Bible. You can not logically combine the two and have the same religion. Hell the Bible contradicts itself enough as it is, bu when you add evolution, all the theology goes right out the window.
Check out Calvinism and Arminianism on Wikipedia sometime. Use it as background for reading Miltons paradise lost and you'll begin to understand the history of the debate that still rages on today.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
My take on this issue is that people who do not have extensive scientific educations are being asked to 'believe' in science in a manner similar to how they 'believe' in religion. Science is fundamentally based on observations and the progression of the scientific method. That said, for most of us, we never see the evidence, nor do we see the details of each hypothesis test. This is further complicated because the body of scientific literature is massive and for every scientific field you can find crap science. Peer review is fallible.
I think we are requiring people to 'believe' in science, simply because science has become too complicated to cover adequately with a standard, non technical education. This creates a conundrum. These people are being required to choose religion -- remember they have been in church since birth -- or science. For them, this must be very difficult. When we listen to a scientist, we hope we are hearing testimony based on evidence, when we hear a preacher we hope we are hearing testimony based on belief.
That said, as a scientist familiar with evolutionary theory, I am troubled by the level with which we understand the mechanisms of evolution and that 48% of people don't even understand the most basic of concepts within it. Should we require people to swallow science without evidence? Should we follow *anything* without evidence? I know I don't, ironically, science doesn't allow me to.
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
I am not surprised.
Half of the US population has IQ's below 100.
48 percent of people are stupid and believe that Genesis is the literal Word Of Gawd and that science is some sort of mental buggery? This is not news.
The fact is that we're *this* close (holding thumb and forefinger a millimeter apart) to burning (well, hanging and pressing, actually) witches again in this country. The code words for "witches" these days are "terrorist," "paedophile," and "science teacher."
--
BMO
Anyway, enough of this. I want someone to help me evolve the long, thin, incredibly strong fingers I'm going to need to open up ther case of the Mac Mini to my right and slot in the replacement disk drive.
New Doctor Who was great tonight, by the way. Rose was great, but you're all going to love Martha Jones. Except for the creationists, of course, who are going to hate The Doctor kissing (whisper it) a black woman.
Let people be ignorant. It's not like bringing people of below average intelligence or fundamentalist mindset into the scientific fold is going to make them valuable contributors. It'll just be a new type of ignorance to deal with.
First you call them ignorant (which is true). Then you call them stupid. Then you call them religious fundamentalists. Then back to ignorant. These are all very separate categories, which you would understand if you had the above-average intelligence that you probably believe you possess. Given the large percentage of the population that is being cited, I think it's unlikely they are all below-average in intelligence. I didn't RTFA so I don't know about their religious beliefs. I submit to you that these are probably people of average intelligence who are ignorant. That means that we as scientists are not getting the word out in a manner that most people find compelling. The problem is not with them, it is with us.
Perhaps you should check out the film Flock of Dodos before you start pointing fingers at who is to blame. (Hint: the dodos are not the intelligent design folks, it's the scientists who are in danger of becoming extinct because they can't communicate simple facts to the mainstream audience.) Elitist attitudes like yours ("hey, if they can't keep up, fuck 'em!") is partially what drives the mainstream to give ID folks a listen.
GMD
watch this
That's what is scary. People making life changing decisions for you believe things with little/no scientific backing. That's why the country is the way it is. That's why we lost the edge we once had. There's a rebirth of celebrating ignorance and we are in the middle of it. Hell, we are basically as a culture in a dark age right now. Once knowledge is acquired it's like our culture as a whole has to check the bible to see if it's credible. Would you want people with the ability to kill you at any moment completely impermeable to reason?
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Speaking scientifically on the need for control groups and cross variable analysus I think it would be a pretty good idea to get some stats on that.
This couldn't be more on topic
I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life
Everyone's a sheep. Modern neuroscience pretty much confirms that most of us run on autopilot most of the time. The real question is, who's your shepherd?
I think the average Slashdotter mostly agrees with Jesus about this. The difference is, the average Slashdotter believes that he's not a sheep, and sees this as insulting. Well, reality check. You are. But who's your shepherd? If there's a single most important decision you can make in your life, it's this. Is it Jesus? Mohammad? Richard Stallman? Pamela Jones? Jimmy Carter? Al Gore? Brad Pitt? Your parents? A good friend? A friendly and knowledgeable professor at school?
A little bit back on topic, is anyone else disturbed that unwavering belief in the theory of evolution has become a litmus test for intelligence?
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
The next time a jesus chrispie gets in your face about this, ask him this: "OK, so the bible says god this, that, and the next thing. Does it say anywhere HOW he did it? And if it doesn't, did you ever wonder why? Did it ever occur to you that if god is POWERFUL enough to make a universe and populate it with life, then he might also be SMART enough to make it run AUTOMATICALLY according to certain laws, such as gravitation and evolution, that don't require constant meddling and micromanagement? And that these laws are simple enough that us mere humans can actually learn and understand them?"
I.e. "In the beginning, god created heaven and earth. For further details, consult a science book".
The fundamentalists distort the bible to come up with their 5000 year theory. For starters, in Peter's Epistle, 3:8 it says to God a thousand years is but a day and a days is a thousand years. That indicates the days in Genisis for the creation are metaphorical, and are at least a thousand years. But Peter was just giving an example, and he could have easily have said to God a million years is but a day, or a billion years is but a day. You can't put human perceptions on God's perception of time.
Furthmore, the Bible is full of parables, symbology, and methaphor. Jesus himself often used parables to describe even realtivley simple things, because the people of the time were unable to grasp much of his teachings. Since Jesus used parables to decribe realively simple things, it is likely the case, in fact certain that God used parables to describe the creation. Do you think primitive tribesmen would have been able to grasp something as complicated as the creation? No, they couldn't, therefore God used parables. When Jesus used parables, he was giving us a lesson on understanding the word of God.
It might also be said that time, in prophecy, is frequently given in symbolic terms. That is, expressed in unconvential means because the time itself is meant symbolically. In Daniel 8, 2,300 evenings and mornings is given as time until the time of the end; seventy sevens is given in Daniel 9 to mean the same thing. A time, times, and half a time is an expression used for the length of time of the reign of the Beast. Jesus's forty days in the desert is linked to the Jews forty years wandering in the desert under Moses. Since time is used symbolically so frequently in the Bible, it is plausible that the days for creation in Genisis are sybmolic.
When it comes to interpeting the Bible, fundmentalists can't see the forest for the trees.
This ad space for rent.
Why is it that we insist on freedom of thought, unless it's thought we don't want people thinking? Am I the only one who sees the inherent hypocrisy of orthodox free thought?
You're not going to Hell for not having a literalist interpretation of Genesis. But... neither is society going to hell in a handbasket because not enough people believe in evolution. It's okay if your auto mechanic believes something different from you. Your software isn't any better or worse because an evolutionist|creationist wrote it.
Really, it's no big deal. Take a deep breath and relax. You'll find you'll live longer for it.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
It's not in TFA, but the poll also reported the following statistics:
27% of Agnostics and Atheists think God guided the process of evolution
13% of Agnostics and Atheists think God created man in his present form.
So a better title for the article might have been "40% of Atheists believe in God".
When you're getting that kind of result, it might be a clue that there's something wrong with your methodology.
I'm not surprised by the percentages, frankly. I'd be interested in seeing the trends. I'd (like to) be surprised to see if it was really all that different in the past. That said, I do think it reflects on our state of education in good ol' USofA. Possibly a good excuse to rail about the state of science education in particular, but I'll take it, 'cause I think it does indeed suck.
I love the story of Genesis; there's good stuff in it. Almost as good as the Silmarillion.
As chance would have it, I'm reading through my old copy of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Now, I know it would be viewed as dated (both factually and cinematographically), but it was a tremendous influence on me. It addresses topics in a very approachable and friendly manner, and is (as I remember it) very far from preachy. It lit me on fire about science, and though I don't make my money in science, I think this program had an impact on my science-based view of the world.
But this is more than 20 years ago now. Short of a Sputnik analog, what voices do we have to popularize science?
.sig,
I've read the original article (perhaps) which indicates that this article is misrepresenting the data, but even there I couldn't find out how they selected who they would ask questions of.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
This kind of ignorance makes it possible for once again, the same few to control the many.
A little bit back on topic, is anyone else disturbed that unwavering belief in the theory of evolution has become a litmus test for intelligence?
I disagree. The best intelligence litmus test is to be skeptic and never accept everything as the complete unquestionable truth. The way I see it, the creationists have about 0.000001% chance of being completely right, the evolutionists have about a 30% chance of being completely right. The complete truth is probably either a slight modification of the evolution theory or a completely different concept that either no one has ever thought of, or that no one is capable of thinking of.
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"
I read a comment on Slashdot just a few days ago (really wish I had bookmarked it, since I'd love to read it again) where the poster mentioned evolution, the Y2K bug, avian flu, and said "science just has no credibility left." I wanted to say "so I guess you won't be using medicine, driving in cars, or POSTING ON THE INTERNET anymore...?" but I've said it before, and the absurdity of rejecting science while depending on it so heavily is just lost on these people.
Because of my car's bumper stickers I'm frequently asked: "Do you believe in evolution?" Instead
of just saying that I do, I try to raise their consciousness a bit by answering "No, I accept
that evolution is the theory that best explains the evidence." This usually gives them a pause.
Belief is often closely associated with faith, and faith is something that isn't necessary to
accept evolution. Only evidence is needed and there is lots of that available.
I'm a teacher and my bumper sticker if very appropriate and funny in several different ways, it
reads: "Leave no child behind - Teach Evolution." I wish I had another one as this one is very
faded.
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
is anyone else disturbed that unwavering belief in the theory of evolution has become a litmus test for intelligence?
Why is it disturbing to define intelligence as having a modicum of knowledge and rational analysis capability?
DNA + "survival of the fittest" = evolution. It's not a theory - it's just a plain consequence of the the tautology "survival of the fittest" and the fact that we're based on a naturally varying chemical hereditory mechanism (DNA). If you don't understand that people who have more children leave more descendents, or that we're based on DNA, then, YES, you are stupid.
Evolution can not be wrong. It's not a theory - it's just a plain fact.
If your DNA causes you to have more children than me, then the DNA of our species has taken a step in the direction of your DNA rather than mine. If the DNA of species A group #1 has diverged from that of species A group #2 to the extent that they can't interbreed then (by definition) one of these groups is a new species.
There may be additional subtleties to how evolution actually plays out (there's plenty of post-Darwin realizations such as that it's environmental change that drives punctuated equilibrium), but the mechanism itself can't be wrong - it's just plain fact. More children = more descendents with your DNA.
Did anyone read the actual poll response in question?
"Do you think the scientific theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?"
48% = Well-supported
39% = Not well-supported
13% = Don't Know
39% not 48%. Zonk, you're fired.
There are actually two versions of Genesis, the old Hebrew one where God is not a single being but Ilohim (which is plural and I may have spelled it wrong).
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..." and all that.
There is no such thing as a Christian version of Genesis, both of the traditions you refer to are in the Hebrew Bible (and they are by no means the only ones, just the most prominent in that part). The word "Elohim" is morphologically plural, but most of the time is used as a singular (ie takes singular verbs and adjectives) for God; sometimes it is used in a plural sense as a general word for "gods" (note the lower case) - eg, "You will have no other gods beside me." It's true that the "Elohist" and "Jahvist" authors/redactors have fairly different conceptions of God (one is more anthropomorphic, for example), but both do talk about a single God. There are some remnants of the earlier Near Eastern concept of a "Divine Council" or "Celestial Host" headed by the supreme god El in the Elohist, and the religion of the time was certainly not monotheistic in our understanding, but the subordinate gods/celestial beings are completely irrelevant in Genesis.
Those who try to take the Bible literally do have an extremely difficult time of it, not the least of the reasons is the question of what exactly is "the Bible". As an example, when the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint disagree, which do you trust? The much earlier Greek translation or the Jewish tradition which was largely oral for a long period of time? Especially when many of the differences are almost certainly deliberate edits, which happen to be inline with the exegesis of one group, or the other.
sic transit gloria mundi
The sad part here is how backward the Church is being (assuming that those 48% are all God-fearing Christians). Rather than trying to fill the gaps in science or offer alternatives for the trickier aspects (where did the Big Bang come from? What was there before? etc), Christianity (or its public face) tries to send us back to medieval concepts. Their mistake is denying clearly factual evidence (the Earth is 6000 years old? Ancient fossils are there to test our faith? etc) rather than moving with the times and working alongside scientific theory and using it as a backup for Christian beliefs rather than a contender.
You have to click through a few links to get to it, but the actual poll states:
It looks like the submitter got mixed up with the two stats that were both 48%.
Disclaimer: This quote has been modified from the original version. It has been reformatted to fit within Slashdot's HTML limits.
Theory is a problem-word. No big surprise: I'm sure most /.ers
realize this. But I can't help but wonder whether we don't all
underestimate how *much* of a problem this little word is.
Referring to the *theory* of evolution makes too many people think of
some dubious hypothesis, perhaps just another man's opinion, rather
than of the fact-constructed model for explaining observed phenomena
that it truly is.
I bet if we talked about the *model* of evolution, we'd have less
trouble than we currently do with all the knee-jerkers who attack
the word theory. A model is stronger than a mere conjecture, but
even an unproven conjecture as it's used in math or science is on
firmer territory than figmental tenets of something like, oh,
Frisbeetarianism (just to pick a religion I'm unlikely to get
lynched over).
Consider number theory: no one imagines number theory to be some vague
notion open to individual interpretation and belief. Imagine if
instead of talking of Newton's three laws of motion, these were
bundled together and called Newton's theory of motion. Swap law into
theory and what happens? Sound a bit shakier?
Not if you understand that theory means more than just somebody's
guess. The Dictionary records 7 principle senses for the noun theory;
of these, the first 2 are obsolete, and the 7th is for combining forms
such as theory-neutral or theory-making. The last main sense, sense 6
(whose first citation is from 1792) is the one giving us grief here:
6 In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation;
hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of
ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
However, sense 6 that's *not* the operative definition for theory as used
in number or automata theory, or in the theories of gravity, of relativity,
or of evolution. Instead, it's sense 4 (first cited in a 1638 example) that
applies here, usually in subsense 4a but sometimes in 4c:
4a A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or
account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been
confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is
propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement
of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of
something known or observed.
4c A systematic statement of the general principles or laws of some
branch of mathematics; a set of theorems forming a connected system:
as the theory of equations, of functions, of numbers, of probabilities.
If our treatment of science and math in primary and secondary education in
the United States weren't in such sorry shambles, more Americans might
understand that *this* sort of theory isn't so much a loose notion as a
model that explains observed phenomena and predicts others, all subject
to empirical testing.
Which would be easier: fixing general science education in American public
schools, or adopting a term like evolutionary model? Although the second
may seem only a small measure compared with how serious the first is,
wouldn't it still be a good idea to attempt the second anyway?
Perhaps I've been listening too much to George Lakoff or Jeffrey Feldman
talking about the importance of word-choice in framing discourse and
debate. But I truly see this "theory"=="hypothesis" misunderstanding as
an unnecessary source of trouble, and think underplaying "theory" in
favor of something more readily apprehended by the layman might help.
--tom
"1: The existence of God is proven (or disproven) definitively to every dead human being."
You're kidding, right? Because this would presuppose awareness, if not conscoiusness and self-awareness on the part of a human after death, for which you have zero - and I do mean zero - evidence. No one, not even you, can prove that a dead human being is anything more than compost.
Your argument starts off with an unprovable statement. A glib and clever-sounding one, to be sure, but unprovable.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
You are a stinking animal. Get over it. Love (the passionate one you feel in the first 5 years of meeting somebody) can directly be linked to hormons delivery in the brain. This 5 years periods can definitvely be traced to the divorce rate being higher at the end of it, and the drop off when that type of neurotransmitter drop down in level. As for the "longer" love I would not be surprised that there is a similar explanation based on neuron pathway created during those 5 years. Remmember the brain learn by repeating.
Yes this is all chemistry despite you prefering to think you have a soul and be a "higher" being than the rest of the animal, in reality you are a mamal and you simply go in a complexer "rut". Sorry to break it to you , you aren't "superior" and "chosen".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
This must be the 48% that also believe Abass Ayeni Dantate, a very wealthy Nigerian, has over $35 million waiting to be transferred directly to their bank accounts.
Warning: Could be fatal if taken seriously
Why must you mock my belief system? I know that the Power Rangers are protecting us all!
This is a popular statement of Karl Popper's falsificationist philosophy of science. Falsification is known to be an inadequate demarcation criterion for what counts as science. No evidence can falsify any particular hypothesis, because we can always revise some belief other than the hypothesis.
Are you adequate?
I've had a look. It's nonsense - the babblings of a lunatic.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Here's the deal: stop saying that America is the greatest nation on Earth, the most advanced nation on Earth, the home of the free, the home of the brave, or any of that other bullshit, and MAYBE people will stop pointing out that every one of those claims is a baldfaced lie.
Seriously, these are the kinds of things that embarrass me when I talk with my foreign friends.
Mystery #1: how on earth Americans can have been fooled by Bush, not just once but twice, the second time ignoring four years' worth of evidence of what an evil fuck he is...
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
I don't mind my country of origin getting called out for being the home of millions of people who lazily and habitually defer to the loudest voice in the room, rather than take a moment to form their own opinion.
And I don't mind the actions of my government being loudly decried as arrogant, clumsy, and in some cases: motivated by genuine corruption.
Nor do I mind when religious zealots of any nation are criticized for allowing a narrow set of dogma and ritual dictate their entire world view.
What I DO mind:
I resent statements that begin with "Americans are...", "Americans believe...", and "America thinks..."
The United States consists of roughly THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE spread (thinly!) from one North American coast to another. I live in the northeastern USA. I have more in common with my friends in Quebec than I do with Texans, Floridians, or even West Virginians. And I guarantee you there are plenty of Austin, Texas residents who take issue with being lumped in with the entire state. Or even their neighbors.
The U.S. is a very big place, brimming with brilliant, vibrant and insightful individuals whose eyes are pointed right out into the big bright world outside. It's a country born out of a vast cultural confluence -- constantly in flux not only as one moves across state lines, but year to year, as well.
Please keep in mind that there are many of us in the U.S. who DO understand the significance of an established peer-approved scientific theory, who DON'T believe that might always makes right, and -- believe it or not -- even hold onto a thick immutable optimism that our homeland might one day come around.
Rather, it's about Revolution.
Ignorant people are easier to manipulate.
They are less likely to question the acts of their government.
They are less likely to cause problems.
.... is that religious people are ordered to conform with authority.
And many do, as evidencied by the painful lack of accountability demanded by the religiou right in the US when they get their man in office.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.